this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
469 points (97.0% liked)

Science Memes

14441 readers
2567 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 12 points 41 minutes ago (1 children)

This is missing out on likely the most important part of trees in urban areas. Shade. They give you a cooler place to stand or walk through.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 11 points 39 minutes ago

No standing or sitting allowed. Resume consumerism!

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 2 points 26 minutes ago

I recently learned that there's a group dedicated to planting 1000 trees in the city of Trenton, NJ, USA. I'm really glad to see a city working to bring back a little nature!

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Upkeep costs. Oh, wait.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 4 points 47 minutes ago

This just makes me think it’s an aquarium that needs to be cleaned.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 36 minutes ago

trees take a loooooong time to grow

[–] notthebees@reddthat.com 18 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

A few reasons: Trees need a lot of space and the space underneath a sidewalk isn't enough for long term life. They can die after like 30 years? This is tree dependent and location dependent.

Tree roots can destroy sidewalks making it harder for people to go over them. (Think people in wheel chairs)

Liability in terms of damage (have you seen trees after a storm?)

[–] MightBeFluffy@pawb.social 5 points 47 minutes ago (1 children)

Sounds like we need to remove the need for sidewalks. Rip up all the roads in the city and replace them with green space. Problem solved

[–] stray@pawb.social 6 points 28 minutes ago

I disagree. Pavement is valuable to pedestrians, cyclists, emergency and service vehicles, and the disabled. While it's important to preserve nature as much as possible, some urbanisation is also a good thing. That said, I'm not sure algae tanks would be necessary in areas where huge tracts of land aren't dedicated to parking. I can't really think of where my city would benefit from them.

[–] bratorange@feddit.org 53 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Like I always think that people don’t get one thing about trees in a city. There purpose is is not about co2. The co2 reduction of city trees is neglectable. The reason you need them in a city is temperature regulation, shade, air quality, mood, the local eco system and maybe solidifying unsealed ground. Putting these tanks in a city is laughably inefficient w.r.t. co2 conversion if you compare this to any effort to do this in instustrial capacity ( which is is also still laughably inefficient)

[–] kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago (5 children)

So.. are you saying the air inside a city park isn't better at all?

[–] bratorange@feddit.org 1 points 15 minutes ago

I think there is a difference between air quality (pollution) and co2 levels.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 49 minutes ago

To be fair, I think it's important to make a distinction between a city park, and a handful of trees lining a busy street.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 1 points 36 minutes ago

CO² isn't want you should be concerned about with air in a city anyway, its the other emissions like particulates. Just being further away from busy roads reduces that significantly so the park air would be better.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 25 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

They were talking about CO2 which is what the algae tank is about.

Trees have other benefits around filtering pollutants that affect air quality such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Also the shading effect reduces ozone accumulation as well as generally helping reduce the urban heat island effect (which in turn reduces the amount of air conditioning needed, even a small amount saves energy and reduces pollution from power stations).

City parks have clean air partly because of tree but also because youre away from roads and buildings so further from car exhausts and chimney stacks. The concentration of pollutants in wide open spaces is lower because the wind can move it around more easily, and there isn't a pollution source directly near by. Tree and grass do help too.

By far the most effective way of reducing pollution is reducing the sources. Trees are CO2 sinks and would reduce some CO2 if there was massive reforestation globally but that is outweighed by the ongoing CO2 production. The best solution is clean energy sources and getting rid of combustion engines.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 1 points 28 minutes ago

I wish my garden was big enough for trees. There are quite a few trees in a park behind our house though, my wifi might just about reach the park too. A better access point would reach it easily.

Have wondered if there might be other options for shade. Perhaps some kind of vines on a trellis. But then sometimes you don't want the shade.

[–] kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Amazing answer, thanks a lot!

Dunno what i'm getting downvotes for

[–] protist@mander.xyz 1 points 41 minutes ago

I think it's because they mentioned trees improve air quality right there in their comment, and then you responded like you didn't read it

[–] Micromot@feddit.org 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

It is, because of the humidity, temperature and also they remove air pollution. Just not CO2

[–] termaxima@programming.dev 28 points 4 hours ago

We can have both trees and this ! Let’s replace the stupid ad spots on bus stops with these 😮

[–] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 1 points 1 hour ago

Your just thinking outside the box!

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 75 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

While I don't want to spoil the joke (but I will) and I hate techno-optimist solutions that displace actual solutions for our biosphere as much as the next person: supposedly, Belgrade is such a dense concrete hell that trees aren't viable solution (at least in the short term).

There is some rumbling that liquid trees are not the solution to the real problems caused by large-scale deforestation, nor does it reduce erosion or enrich the soil. However, much of this wrath is misplaced as Liquid tree designers say that it was not made as a replacement for trees but was designed to work in areas where growing trees would be non-viable. Initiatives like Trillion Trees are laudable, but there is something to be said for the true utility of this tiny bioreactor. The fact that they can capture useful amounts of carbon dioxide from day one is another benefit for them. Such bioreactors are expected to become widespread in urban areas around the world as the planet battles rising carbon levels in the atmosphere.

Source

[–] tostiman@sh.itjust.works 29 points 4 hours ago

They can thrive in tap water and can withstand temperature extremes.

So maybe they can be used in regions that are too hot for trees, like desert cities

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

And for people who think that the trillion tree idea is anything else than just the oil lobby running with a feel good solution, I have a great podcast episode for you

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3AZIvnCFvavc9Qfs10XPxW

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 10 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Spotify doesn't work on my phone. Care to link the podcast page on a platform not trying to corner the market, please?

[–] Szewek@lemm.ee 5 points 3 hours ago

I guess it would take a lot of time to accommodate Mars for trees. More than for algae ;)

[–] rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com 70 points 6 hours ago (5 children)

im guessing "where will the animals go" is also a stupid question?

[–] wiccan2@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

I would guess into the tree soup.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 35 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Also, where do I find the shade?

[–] NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 hours ago

You will shelter next to the goo tank and you will like it.

[–] Flames5123@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 hours ago

Exactly what I love about the Seattle tree coverage. So much shade.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Trimatrix@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Less infrastructure erosion from roots? Integration into places like above ground parking spaces? Hell could you imagine integrating them into bridge underpasses or walk ways? Heck make a semi destructible version and use that for crash bollards. Only a level 5 vegan is going to complain if some allege is spilt.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 56 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (5 children)

They get in the way of parking spots. The steel cages must rule supreme.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 41 minutes ago

The steel cages must rule supreme.

Just ask The Undertaker and Mankind...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 31 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

Real answer is probably that they'd be used in addition to trees, designed to fit in places unsuitable for a tree.

[–] DasFaultier@sh.itjust.works 17 points 5 hours ago

This. Trees (especially large ones) are a pain to irrigate properly, might not be drought-resistant, grow very slowly until they reach their full potential at removing CO2, interfere with infrastructure that we humans are used to (piping, electricity, telco), roots break up pavements, branches can be a hazard after storms, fruit might attract rats, ...

I'm very much pro trees (despite what I've listed in the first paragraph), but I'm sure there are places in cities where you can't plant trees but could put up algae tanks.

If you understand German (specifically Austrian dialect) you might like this podcast episode about challenges and methods to overcome them in the context of greenery in the city of Graz:

Simple Smart Buildings: Bäume in der Stadt

Webseite der Episode: https://podcasted3e6b.podigee.io/153-baume-in-der-stadt

Mediendatei: https://audio.podigee-cdn.net/1742586-m-9ecab280e580cd07f75c83ed9379b970.mp3?source=feed

TL;DL of this episode: it's not as simple as "just plant more trees".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 25 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Has the manufacturer even calculated how much energy is needed for production and how long it will take for the corresponding CO2 emissions to be amortized?

We are living in strange times...

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago

And trees that are planted in cities are not seeded. They are grown in a forestry until they reach a certain height. And then dug up with machines transported with machines and then planted with machines. The CO2 produced to plant a single tree also takes quite a while to be absorbed by that tree.

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 12 points 5 hours ago

Who cares? You can sell these tanks for a better profit than trees.

[–] umbraroze@slrpnk.net 18 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Insert random copypasta about biotech breakthrough that turns water and CO2 and nutrients into sustainable building materials which sounds like space age technology but it's just trees

[–] Madrigal@lemmy.world 21 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

You can’t charge a subscription fee for trees.

[–] abbadon420@lemm.ee 9 points 5 hours ago

What you can do is take all the trees and put them in a tree museum and charge the people a dollar and a half to see them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›